Creation Versus Evolution

We compare the theory of evolution with the Bibles creation account in easy-to-understand terms, using evidence from the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and astronomy. We provide links and a bibliography for those who want to study both sides of the issue. We fully explain all the scientific terms on this page.

Note: This page is long. It may be easier to read if you print it out on paper. Print one test page first, as some browser/printer combinations make this text very light.

How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.

If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? We can only think of two reasons:

The Bibles creation account is not politically acceptable. The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts.

We can not help the first condition. This page does contain all the necessary information needed for everyone else.

Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bibles account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone.

Special NoteGenesis 1 and 2

The Bible often restates important points. As an example, the first four books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biographies of Jesus. Scholars have learned over time that these four views of Jesus give us a better understanding of Him than we would have had if only one account had been recorded. The same is true of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 describes all the physical events of creation. Genesis 2 looks back at the creation of humans more closely. Genesis 2 may appear to be a little different from Genesis 1, leading some people to believe there is a mistake in there somewhere. This is a problem caused by translation from the original Hebrew into English. Careful attention to the verb tenses in Hebrew and to the purpose of each chapter removes any apparent contradictions between the two. For example, Genesis chapter 2, verse 19 (Gen 2:19) uses the perfect tense, indicating finished actions regarding the creation of the animals. That is, the animals brought to Adam were created earlier, not created in Adams presence. Chapter 2 is a look back at the last half of chapter 1. Before we go on, if you would like to read the account yourself, click on the link below. It takes about 5 minutes to read.

Note: references on this page, like the one in the paragraph below, are enclosed in brackets [ ]. With most browsers, you can view the reference by clicking on the number. The page will jump you to the reference at the bottom of this page. Use your browsers back button to return to approximately where you started.

It is interesting that the formation of the earth proposed by noted astronomer (astrophysicist) Hugh Ross has the exact same order as the creation account given in Genesis chapter 1 [1].

1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earths atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind.

Note: The preceding list assumes that the universe was the result of a big bang type event (an evolutionary cause). This is not in agreement with the Bible. For example, this list proposes that the appearance of light (item 2) and the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars (item 6) are results of the Earths atmospheric changesnot a result of the literal creation of the sun, moon, stars, or light. So, be aware that lists like the one above do not agree with the Bibles stated cause for these events. We only include this list to illustrate that science agrees with the Bibles order of creation events.

Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the Bible because we can find some scientific proposals that agree with it. It means that science continues to uphold knowledge recorded in the Bible over three thousand years ago.

Another significant event occurs in Genesis chapters 6 through 8what can be referred to as The Flood. To save themselves, Noah and his family built a covered boat called an ark. It was a large, boxy craft that resembled a covered barge. Before we go on, if you would like to read the Bibles record of the ark and the flood yourself, click on the link below. It takes about 7 minutes to read.

Notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven. Science has discovered large underwater springs [2], so it is easy to imagine fountains of the great deep being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. It has also been proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a canopy would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very temperate. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one timeindicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening the windows of heaven. The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.

Although off the subject, this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areassome with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.

Note: Genesis chapter 1, verse 7 states, Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. Since the word firmament means an expanse, some people proposed that the firmament corresponds to Earths atmosphere, and use the verse to prove that a canopy of water existed above our atmosphere. However, we learn in Genesis chapter 1 verses 14-19 that the Sun and Moon are in the firmament. Therefore, the firmament corresponds to the Earths atmosphere and the heavens beyond. This does not mean the canopy theory is wrong, but that well-meaning people must not use the Bible to prove that it is true.

How Did the Theory Start?

Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals. He guessed that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery, by the way. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organisms appearance through a series of small changes is correctly called microevolution (with an i) and is not what we are referring to when we write the theory of evolution on this page. After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a frognot a fish or a lizard.

Getting the Terms Straight

The textbooks and media teach us that we came into existence by a two step process:

First, 10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulted in the formation of some simple form of life. Scientists call this development of living organisms from nonliving matter abiogenesis.

Second, they use Darwins theory, stating that this simple life evolved over the next 3 plus billion years into the plants, animals, and humans we see todayusing the long term effects of microevolutionary changes. Scientists call this process of developing new life forms macroevolution (Note the different spelling.)

Both of these processes put together are what the public at large and the scientific community think the theory of evolution is [3]. Therefore, abiogenesis combined with macroevolution is what we are referring to when we write the theory of evolution on this page.

For example, if you observe a discussion between two people regarding whether the Bibles creation account or the theory of evolution is correct, they will not be debating whether a species of clam can develop larger ridges in its shell! (A microevolution topic.) They will be discussing where did life come from? and did we descend from apelike ancestors? These are abiogenesis and macroevolution topics, respectively. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution. So, the person supporting evolution will typically turn the argument around to microevolution, where some evidence exists. Please be aware that if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, they are changing the topic on you and not proving anything.

A Note on DNA

As a proof of macroevolution, many scientists turn to a lengthy, yet sophisticated discussion about changes in DNA from generation to generation. Be aware that this is still a jump in logic, since DNA changes are a microevolution topicnot scientific proof of abiogenesis, macroevolution, or the theory of evolution.

Who Currently Develops and Promotes These Theories?

Scientists and professors who promote evolutionary thought usually come from one of three scientific fields. The first field is called paleontology. A paleontologist is a scientist who (1) examines fossils, (2) proposes the family tree of life they come from, (3) estimates the time frame in which they lived (based on the geologic rock layers they were found in), and (4) speculates on their evolutionary paths. The other two fields in this area are geology (the study of rocks) and biology (the study animals and plants). The scientists in these areas are closely related and often work together.

The work that involves studying the evolutionary development of groups of organisms (plants and animals) is called phylogeny and can be done by any of these people. There are other related fields such as anthropology and even astronomy that provide information relevant to our discussion of creation and evolution, but we will not list them all. Notenot all of these scientists believe in the theory of evolution. These are simply the scientific fields that supply most of the facts related to this topic. Many of them, especially scientists in the related fields of astronomy and astrophysics, are realizing that the Bibles creation account is a good explanation of how we got here. Still, although many astronomers accept a Creator, many still interpret the Bible so loosely that they believe that the universe (and the earth) is billions of years old. The link below explains using simple terms their measurement methods and shows why the earth could be young (less than 10,000 years old).

The Role of the Book

Since Darwins time, the theory of evolution developed through people writing books. Nothing dug up out of the ground (or discovered anywhere else) has ever supported the theory of evolution. Examine the books that promote evolution yourself. They typically contain two things:

First, they contain artists drawings that show the ages and names of the layers of the earth.

Please remember one thing, these pictures are not evidence. Printing them for more than a hundred years does not change that, either. Anyone can construct a table or draw a picture and propose a theory, but that does not prove the theory.

Yes, we know that the books supporting evolution contain much more information than two pictures. However, from this foundation, the authors only apply the facts in their books to the theory of evolution model. We are not aware of any public school text that mentions another model, like the Bibles creation account. That is a primary reason for creating this page.

Before we go on, we would like to answer some questions that always seem to come up. One involves how pairs of all the animals could have been collected by one family. Remember, if God is really God, he could have caused the flood, a supernatural event, to occur. Does it not also make sense that God could cause pairs of animals to migrate to the location of the ark? Notice the phrase in Genesis chapter 6, verse 20: "two of every kind will come to you." Also, Genesis chapter 7, verse 9 states the animals "went into the ark to Noah." The answer is simple, Noah did not go and get the animals, God did.

The next question is, how did all those animals fit on the ark? First, you should notice that different kinds of animals were brought onto the ark (Gen 6:20). Unlike the more recently introduced terms genus, species, and so forth [4], the Bibles kinds can be thought of as what the average person would call an animal. For example, there may be many species of doves, but they are all still doves. Therefore, doves would be a kind of animal (bird, actually). Scientists have calculated the average size of the different kinds of animals (except for dinosaurs). It comes out to be about the size of a sheep. Based on this, we believe that all the kinds of animals would have taken up about one-third (1/3) of the room on the ark. That would leave plenty of room for Noahs family and a years supply of food.

Now, what about dinosaurs, were they on the ark and could they fit? (If you do not understand that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time, you need to read our Dinosaurs Page.) We believe dinosaurs were on the ark. The solution to getting the large ones on the ark is in using young dinosaurs. They take up less room, they eat less, and they have more of their reproductive life left for restarting the population. Although out of context for this page, we offer one explanation regarding why most dinosaurs disappeared (after the flood was over and they left the ark) here in our frequently asked questions section.

What makes the flood important to our topic is all the evidence it left around. For one thing, pretty much everything that did not live in water would have been killed in a yearlong flood. This would have left an enormous layer of dead things that would later become coal and oil . . . and leave fossils. It is evident to everyone, as we view our dwindling energy resources, that a lot of material was left in the ground at one time. As this page develops, we will discuss why we believe these resources were left as the aftermath of a flood, rather than the result of accumulation of normal dying animals and plants over millions of years.

If you have flown on a plane, you probably noticed how different mountains look from the air than they do from the ground. They look more wrinkled than you would expect, and almost artificial in appearance. The canyons and rivers that flow out of them look different alsosort of like the seashore after the tide runs out and you see little grooves in the sand. This is especially noticeable if you are flying over a part of the world that does not have much vegetation to hide the shape of the land like Arizona, Nevada, and Utah in the United States. The next time you are in a plane and over such an area, look down and see if it makes sense that this appearance could have been caused about 4,000 years ago if everything had been covered with water for a year and then drained off in a short time. We do not claim this as proof, by the waybut this is one of many such observations that make one wonder.

The Evidence

As evidence to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. We spent a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a circle of information, with each document pointing to the next source as their proof. In college, we cynically called this procedure the tower of babble. (Yes, babble is the right wordthis phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends!

Unfortunately (and we really do mean unfortunately) we found that the writings on evolution are the same. We could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. (We will discuss the scientific facts later.) The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwins theoretical writings. If you think we are exaggerating, examine the documentation yourself. By the way, the web contains many online versions of Darwins book. Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution?

By the way, we realize that many of the writings that support the Bibles creation account also have flimsy or questionable evidence. We are trying to break out of that behavior pattern.

We are not proposing that every science book should throw out the evolution model and stick in the Bibles creation account instead. We propose that the Biblical model should be mentioned and given equal time, with an unbiased treatment showing how it agrees with the facts. If you want to find someone who can compose the biblical side, write us:

So, How Do I Get to the Facts?

If you like reading books, a good one on this topic is The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse. Another good book is Darwins Black Box by Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry. There is one advantage to a bookyou can carry it around more easily than your computer, and you do not need an Internet connection, either! Both of these books qualify as best sellers.

In the following section, we will apply the scientific method to the known, scientific facts relevant to the origins of our world (and the plants and animals on it). For those who are not familiar with the scientific method, it states the proper way to test and answer questions scientifically. It has four steps:

State the question.

Form a hypothesis (educated guess of the answer to the question).

Do experiments (to test whether the hypothesis is right or not).

Interpret the data (results) and draw conclusions.

For the purpose of this page, the scientific method applies as follows:

The question: Where did life (and people) come from?

The two hypotheses:

The creation model as written in the Bible tells us how we got here.

The evolution model using abiogenesis combined with macroevolution tells us how we got here.

The experiments: Various tests and discoveries by paleontologists, biologists, geologists, and other scientists.

The data (results): Listed under Scientific Facts in the table below. We draw conclusions and mark the hypothesis that fits the data best with a red dot.

There are some cases where both hypotheses fit the facts. In those cases, we gave both models a red dot. To see the reasoning behind any evaluation, click on the topic or the red dot and it will jump you to the explanation. Use your browsers back button to return to approximately where you were before the jump.

Scientific Facts Compared to the Bibles Creation Account and the Theory of Evolution

Important

We believe any unbiased reader will realize that we were fair with our treatment of the two models in the table above. Yet, although the theory of evolution matches the facts in some cases, evolution is still an unproven theory. Further, the scientific evidence matches the Bibles creation account better in most cases. By now, you may believe it should be your first choice also.

How Do I Know What I Saw Here Is Correct?

Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense of evolution for two reasons:

To keep from being accused of bias. To keep from making claims that someone could refute later.

Even though there are a great number of claims in books and on the Internet, we could find no scientific, testable facts that support the theory of evolution. The best site we could find was at The University of California at Berkeley. If you are interested, click here to examine the scientific evidence recorded at UC Berkeley yourself. It includes lots of pictures, links to other pages, and scientific names. The site is very interesting and informative. Yet, we could not find a listing of the provable, testable facts supporting evolution anywhere. Take some time and search the Internet yourself. Just search for evolution, phylogeny, geologic column, or any related keyword in any search engine you choose. If you find any hard scientific, testable evidence for evolution, please write us: and let us know (and include the link)! Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the work at Berkeley (and other places) does not have value. On the contrary, we appreciate paleontologists, geologists, biologists, and all the other related scientists. We differ in that we believe their data fit the Bibles creation model best and the facts should be applied to it, rather than to the unproven theory of evolution model. Still, we are not so naive as to believe that our saying so will change the opinions of anyone. Paraphrasing what we said at the beginning of this page, the reason many people will not change their point of view is because:

The Bibles creation account is not politically acceptable in the context of their lifestyle. They do not want to take the time to learn the truth.

Reasoning used for the Comparison of Creation and Evolution to the Facts

Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Someone who believes in evolution would have you believe this happened over time. Think logicallyif a rat died in an open field today, or a deer died in the woods, would either become fossilized? Would they stay put and untouched on the ground long enough to be covered by dirt eventually and become fossilized? No. They would be eaten by other animals and blown around by the winds and rains until a complete skeleton was no longer available. The reality is that there is no evidence that fossils were formed continually (or are being formed continually) as the theory of evolution predicts.

On the other hand, what would happen if there were a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, including the rat and the deer? They might float for awhile, but would eventually sink to the bottom of the water. Next, the sediment on the bottom of the water would cover the remains (since it is very mobile compared to dirt on landespecially if there is a flood going on at the time) starting the process of fossilization.

There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model.

The point of discussion here is whether the layers were deposited over vast geological times or over a relatively quick period. Steve Austin investigated the Mount St. Helens eruption, which produced a small scale version of the Grand Canyon. He showed that thousands of layers were deposited over a number of days rather than being laid down gradually over long (4.5 billion years) geologic ages. We are not stating that this proves that the layers of the earths surface were laid down quickly. We are stating that ample evidence exists that the layers of the earth could be produced quickly by a geologic catastrophe like the flood in the Bible. Since neither model can prove itself in this area, we will award a tie to the creation and evolution models.

If you are interested, Steve Austins presentation, entitled Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe is available on video cassette through The Institute for Creation Research. It includes spectacular shots taken before, during, and after the eruption of Mount St. Helens.

We are told that old fossils are found in old rock layers and recent fossils are found in recent rock layers. Yet, some fossils (like clams) are found in all strata, including rock layers at mountain tops. So, learning which clam was millions of years old and which one is only a few thousand years old becomes a little tricky.

Most people do not know that most rock layers are dated by the fossils they contain. Scientists will choose a special reference fossil called an index fossil. Then they assume (based on the phylogenetic tree) that the simple index fossils were the oldest. Finding one of these oldest index fossils in a layer identifies that layer as the oldest. They then assign a date to that rock layer (based on the theory of evolution) and record that date on their geologic time scale. They continue this process with the more complex index fossilsassigning each increase in complexity to a younger rock layer until they complete filling out the geologic time scale. (A complete geologic time scale is also referred to as a geologic column.)

One special note: Although Darwin popularized evolution, he was not the first person to suggest it. Others before him proposed that layers of the earth were laid down in a sequencesuggesting geologic dates based on their evolutionary model. Remember, the mere fact that someone preceded Darwin does not prove Darwins theories, validate these dating methods, or prove the theory of evolution.

Notice that although the layers of the earth were dated using index fossils, the index fossils were dated by guessing their age based on the theory of evolution. This is not science nor a valid application of the scientific method. Suggesting a hypothetical age for a fossil (based on a theory) and then telling everyone it is an established fact is not the way to apply the scientific method. If you quiz paleontologists about this, many will assure you that their techniques are indeed scientific. They will tell you they accurately date the fossil using the date of the rock layer in which they found it.

Did you notice what just happened? They assigned a date to the fossil, then dated the layer of earth which contained that fossil. Then they turned around and told you they knew the age of the fossil, because they knew the date of that layer of earth. This is called circular reasoning.

You may be wondering about radiometric (radioactive) dating, which we will examine next. However, you should know that scientists established the geologic time scale and assigned the ages of the fossils in those rock layers before radioactive dating was invented. In essence, the discussion of radioactive dating is a sophisticated way to divert peoples attention from the fact that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

What about radiometric dating?

Radiometric (radioactive) dating does not yield results that are as consistent as many books would have you believe. For example, Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating (tests used for dating volcanic rock) rely on the assumption that no radiogenic Argon exists in the rocks when they forman assumption that is not true. [5] With no consistent starting point or zero age, the rock ages reported by the test can vary dramatically, (depending on the amount of radiogenic Argon they started with). [6]

There is another radioactive dating method called fission track dating, so named because the decay of Uranium 238 creates a minor disruption in the material that scientists call a track. Unfortunately, it has results that differ from the other radiometric methods. For example, a rock in Nigeria dated 95 million years old with Potassium-Argon dating, and 750 million years old using Uranium-Helium dating measured only 30 million years old with fission track dating. [7] Do you see how the scientist could control the age reported for the geologic layer by specifying the test method?

There is one documented case where a single lump of tuff (a type of porous rock) contained components which individually dated at 1.87 million years, 25 million years, and 500 million years old. [8] Now ask yourself, if you can get such large discrepancies within a single lump, how accurately do you believe that these testing methods define the ages of layers of the earth where fossils are found?

Yes, there is a more accurate radioactive dating method available called isochron dating. You can get an overview of isochron dating by clicking on this sentence. This dating technique does have a problem, though. It is designed to measure times on the order of a billion (1,000,000,000) years or more. Therefore everything you measure with this dating technique will seem to have great age.

For example, if you wanted to measure the distance between Los Angeles and New York, you could fly a jet airplane at a constant speed and measure the time the flight takes. Knowing the speed and time, you can calculate the distance. Now, what would happen if you used the same technique to measure the length of a house you flew over on the way to New York? It would give you bad results because you could not measure the time it took to fly over the house accurately enough to get a good answer. The same is true if you use isochron dating to measure something that is only a few thousand years old.

Another problem arises when you submit a sample for testing. Because of the variations that we just mentioned, the people operating the equipment will ask you for an estimated age of the itembefore they run the test. This is true of both radiometric dating (used for igneous rock) and Carbon 14 dating (used for things that were once living).

Did you notice what happened? The scientist biased the results by determining the desired result before starting. Then, they chose a method that will give them the results they expect. This is not correct scientific procedure. How would you like it if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluated products only after they predicted the results?

What the Bible says

The worldwide flood described in the Bible would also place different fossils in the layers of the Earths surface. A worldwide flood would kill all the animals (except for some that normally live in water) and most of the vegetation. Without land to break up the tides, all water movement would become very turbulent, mixing the different sizes and species together with trees and other vegetation. Whatever happened to sink to the bottom first would be covered first with the earth and silt stirred up during the flood. Those plants and animals that sank later would be buried in the higher layers.

To be fair, finding fossils in different layers of earth does not prove the Bibles creation model either. For that reason, we give both models a tie on this issue.

In 1976, the complete fossil skeleton of a baleen whale was uncovered in Lompoc, California, crossing many geological layers (apparently millions of years of strata) [9]. This is an isolated incident, but the fossil discoveries in the next paragraph are very common.

Fossil trees are often found in a position where a single fossil occupies many geologic layers at the same time. These are referred to as polystrate fossil trees. (See sketch at right.) Are we supposed to believe these trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized? We would like someone to prove it to us by showing us a tree that was alive 10,000 or 20,000 years ago and is mostly (but not completely) buried in an upright position today. A flood, which would cause massive amounts of earth movement, is a much better explanation for the unique placement of both of these fossil types. For example, a whale that died or was killed could get temporarily stuck in an upright position and quickly buried. The same thing could happen to a tree.

Put simply, trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser (and larger diameter) root end of some of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position. Later, after completely sinking, the now upright trees would be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake (next to Mount St. Helens) can find many half-buried, upright trees (not stumps) in the bottom of the lake today. If you would like more detail, we recommend viewing the video done by Steve Austin which thoroughly, yet simply explains the mechanism that allows trees to span the geologic layers [10].

These fossils and others that span multiple layers reject and disprove the concept that geologic layers always represent long periods of time. Therefore dating fossils by the layer of earth they are found in (to support the theory of evolution) is not valid. We do not dismiss the fact that layers can be laid down over time. We are saying that the existence of layers in the earth does not prove the passage of any specific time. Further, we do know that fossils found in different layers can be deposited at essentially the same time.

Large groups of fossils are often found together. These graveyards contain a wide variety of animal remains.

Many different types of fossils are found mixed in with one another. How logical is it that animals would die in heaps, leaving their remains for a long period of time until they are eventually covered up with dust and become fossils? Does this happen anywhere today? Of course not.

On the other hand, if there was a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, you would expect the bodies of all types of unrelated animals to eventually come to rest on the bottom of the body of water, in piles. As we mentioned before, the mobile sediments on the waters floor would easily move around and start covering these piles of animals, forming mass graveyards.

Scientists have successfully arranged groups of animals into a tree of life (phylogenetic tree)

If you examine a tree of life, you will observe something surprisingno species on one branch changes into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form that split into the two species? You are only shown a gap where the change was to have taken place. It does not take a Ph.D. to realize that no true transitional forms have been found, and the tree is trying to illustrate a principle that does not actually exist.

There used to be an interactive phylogenetic tree on the web, which was not only fun to play with, but also demonstrated the concept mentioned in the preceding paragraph very well. Early visitors to this page were able to use a link we provided to check it out. Unfortunately, the Webmaster of that site removed that questionable (but cool) feature and exchanged it with a cladogram. To see a cladogram, click here.

Many animals appeared suddenly at the start of the Cambrian Period, even though only a few multicellular fossils appear in earlier rock layers.

At a certain level (rocks corresponding to the Pre Cambrian Era) the geologic layers contain almost no fossils. The few that exist are those from cellular and multicellular creatures such as algae or bacteria. Suddenly, in the next higher layer (corresponding to the Cambrian Period) many sophisticated, fully formed fossils appear. These varied creatures include Trilobites, brachiopods, gastropods, bivalves, crinoids, graptolites, sponges, and segmented worms. This sudden appearance of so many fully developed life forms can not be explained using the theory of evolution and the slow-working microevolution model. Too many different creatures appear fully developed, too suddenly.

Note: some of these animals, like the bivalves (clams and so forth) are still with us today. They look pretty much the same as they always did, even though the theory of evolution would have us believe they are very primitive life forms and should have changed a little by now! (We will comment further when discussing living fossils in the next section.)

In contrast with the theory of evolution, the Bibles creation account can explain why so many fully developed creatures came into existence so suddenlyGod created them. Further, a world wide flood can easily explain a geologic layer filled with complex fossil remains resting on top of a relatively empty geologic layerthese creatures were killed during the flood. If you do not understand how something that lives under water can be killed by a flood, remember the springs of the great deep that opened up at the beginning of the flood. If these springs resembled todays hydrothermal vents [2], they could easily cook all the marine life in the vicinity, which would then become the first casualties, being buried in the ocean floor sediment before the other plants and animals. This would also explain why the fossils of these life forms are typically found in the lowest strata.

Scientists discovered living fossils like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for millions of years.

This is a genuine embarrassment for scientists who believe in evolution, who had to scramble for ideas that explained why these animals did not evolve while others did. (They had to find some explanation, or admit that the theory of evolution was wrong.) A popular example of such an explanation uses the concept of stabilizing selection, which would be worded like this: Natural selection prevented change by eliminating all the innovations, sometimes for periods of millions of years. Notice that this statement is the exact opposite of normal evolutionary thought. If that is really the case, we wonder why some renegade species chose to follow stabilizing selection while others chose to evolve. The reality is that the theory of evolution has no valid explanation for living fossils.

This is an example of the concept of stasisstanding in one spot. It may help you to know that stasis is not limited to living fossils. Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) stated, Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. Therefore, both living fossils and the fossil record itself are in conflict with the theory of evolution, which normally teaches that we should see constant change in speciesnot stasis. Actually, the concept of stasis fits the Bibles creation model perfectly. We would expect created plants and animals to remain in stasisthe way God created them.

Modern human skulls and bones have been discovered in Pliocene layers.
These findings include those at Calaveras (1866), Castenedolo (1860, 1880),
and Ipswich (1912). [11] Finding modern human remains
in layers that are believed to be 7-12 million years old casts serious
doubt on the theory of evolution regarding humans (or scientific dating
methods), since that is the time Ramapithecus (a supposed ape-man) was
proposed to exist. If both Ramapithecus and modern man lived at the same
time, we would know that people did not evolve from this ancestor
(or any of the later ones). That is, for modern man to evolve
from Ramapithecus, Ramapithecus would have had to exist before modern
man. The evidence does not support this idea.

To explain these threatening discoveries, scientists offered
many explanations regarding how all these fossils ended up in a Pliocene
layer. The most popular explanation is that these remains were the result
of burials, which just happened to end up in a Pliocene layer. There is,
however, a real problem with this claim: no scientist wishes to announce
a discovery and later have someone make them into a fool by
revealing that they only dug up a grave (or was the naive dupe of a hoaxer).
As a result, these men documented the geologic terrain to make sure that
the remains they found were not the result of an intrusive burial
before reporting the findings.

A Final Comment

Since this writer spent many years in scientific research, I know how
painful it is to propose a theory and then discover evidence disproving
the theory. Still, the professional thing to do is admit that the proposed
theory was wrong and look for a new hypothesis. In this way, you eventually
discover the truth. Open-minded scientists will always follow such a procedure.
The reader may find it interesting to learn that it was our original intention
to explain how God used evolutionary processes to accomplish
the creation described in the Bible. We later learned that the evidence
does not support the theory of evolution, but supports a literal creation
by God in six days. This required a change in our theory,
but we were more interested in presenting the truth than in promoting
a favorite theory. Unfortunately, it seems that many people are so committed
to the theory of evolution that they can not admit that their theory is
failing on every front. Therefore, they explain away or ignore
the evidence that they do not like and highlight evidence that supports
their viewpoint. Selectively choosing the evidence you like and disregarding
the evidence you dislike is not the way to discover the truth. For anyone
who read this entire page (and who does not have a chip on
their shoulder), one conclusion should be clear: the evidence strongly
favors the Bible's creation account, and does not support the theory of
evolution.

References

Note: some of the references below are books or articlesnot links to other web pages. We have copies of all of the web references in case any of them are removed from their web sites. If any of the links are broken, please contact us: and we will either fix the link or make the article available on our server.

All information contained in Clarifying Christianity is a resource for questions dealing with Christian issues. It is not to be taken as Christian counseling. Seek a qualified Christian counselor for help with all such issues. If you choose to work with a Christian counselor, it is your responsibility to ask pertinent questions before you begin, to assure yourself of their qualities and abilities.